Audrey Hepburn, whose beauty was singular, style iconic and presence irreplaceable. Audrey Hepburn, who hangs above my couch immortalized in a framed poster of Holly Golightly staring into a Tiffany’s window. Audrey Hepburn, who in no way, shape or form resembles Carey Mulligan, Natalie Portman or our favorite Vajazzler, Jennifer Love Hewitt.

Ever since winning accolades and an Oscar nod for An Education, Carey was forced to bear the flattering-yet-awful burden of being compared to this Very Special Person beloved by young women around the world. It is a terrible cross to bear; it seemed as if every movie writer, critic and pundit was crowning  her The Next Audrey, thereby putting pressure on Carey to live up to that standard and overlooking her own brand of uniqueness. Carey became understandably embarrassed, saying: “You feel like Shrek compared to Audrey Hepburn. It’s a really nice comparison, but it just seems so mad.”

Early in her career and still today, Natalie faces the same comparisons. She and the film icon have much in common: a gamine style mixed with an Old World elegance;  scores of male and female admirers; a good head on their shoulders; a humanitarian streak. But NatPort is her own person, and lacks the cinematic legacy (and an iconic role) that Audrey owns.

Another faux Audrey, as christened by the media: Keira Knightley. And another one, as christened by herself: OMG JENNIFER LOVE HEWITT.

Jennifer Love’s career spiraled further downward into the wacky-and-tacky world of D-listers when she staged her 30th birthday photo op in front of the Tiffany’s in Beverly Hills. We get it, JLove, you played Audrey in that Lifetime miniseries; you changed your accent four times but did not once capture the essence of this glorious creature.

Post from: Crushable

For Saldana, not even taking into account her appearance as a blue alien in the biggest blockbuster movie of all time, Avatar, she has another appearance on her resume that will always endear her to people I surround myself with: She was in Star Trek. It’s a rule: Any actress who appears in a Star Trek or Star Wars film will always be held in high regard (eg Carrie Fisher, Natalie Portman) — at least by the vocal male population that uses the Internet as their sounding board. Is Kim Cattrall a sex symbol because she played Samantha on Sex and the City? No. It’s because she played Valeris in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

What does that say about us as a society, though? Nothing much, except guys who like Star Wars and Star Trek will worship any girl who’s willing to enter that world, paycheck or not. That’s still a more respectable attitude than guys who are drawn toward celebrities whose looks are good for (ahem) private arousal — Olivia Munn, Brooklyn Decker — than any real substance. These are probably the guys to stay away from unless you’re a girl who is attracted to Ian Ziering, then, it’s probably a good fit. The good news is that this particular brand of male is too busy playing flip cup right now, anyway. (Or, as Wikipedia tells me, the game can also just be called “cup.” Which was, I had thought, a fake card game made up by Chandler Bing.)

Speaking of Friends, Jennifer Aniston played Rachel but will always be tied less to her co-stars — Courteney Cox and Lisa Kudrow — than to a woman she has never shared a screen with, Angelina Jolie. To a guy, Aniston represents not, as she does to females, the jilted former wife of Brad Pitt who we pity. For guys, she represents everything Jolie is not: Attractive yet approachable; ordinary, but in a good way; not attempting, in her own mind, to save the world; and, most notably, not once married to Billy Bob Thornton. These are all things guys will find attractive. She is everywoman for the common man. The laid-back, cool chick. Which is ironic, because at the height of Friends’ popularity, Aniston was perceived as the opposite of all these things. Aniston hasn’t changed. It’s just the male perspective of her has changed when directly compared with the eccentric Jolie. Is this fair? Probably not. But she doesn’t seem to be complaining.

There are certain actresses who carry a sense of just-out-of-reach unattainability to their persona. A persona that opens up the adventurous side of the male personality that could encourage a guy to either (a) sing The Pixies during karaoke or (b) cover Stillwater on tour for Rolling Stone. At one time this was Audrey Hepburn; today this would be Zooey Deschanel. Guys who love Deschanel aren’t in love with her, they’re in love with the idea of her. This is dangerous. These are guys looking for an excuse to chase their wildest dreams. Unfortunately, it never ends with catching their dreams. It usually ends with him sobbing, on the F Train ride home from Brooklyn, asking himself why it didn’t work out and why she wants you to really listen to the lyrics of “Nothing Better” by The Postal Service. (Damn you,  Ben Gibbard!)

Then there’s the confusing cases of Anne Hathaway and Maggie Gyllenhaal. Two enigmas when it comes to this question. Hathaway seems to have found a niche in the gay community but, for some reason, isn’t mentioned much as a straight male’s celebrity fantasy. Which is odd, but not completely surprising. Based on the roles she has played, there’s never been one that — like Deschanel in (500) Days of Summer — sparks the emotional epicenter of the male psyche. Or, maybe, considering her popularity in the gay community, no insecure straight male wants to openly admit to his attraction. Fearing the inevitable “You like the girl from The Devil Wears Prada?” questions which lead directly to “Wait, you’ve seen The Devil Wears Prada?”

Gyllenhaal, for her part, is the unchallenged queen of the love her/hate her debate. No actress is more polarizing for really no reason. Half the people I know claims she made The Dark Knight better, taking over for Katie Holmes; the other half feels she almost ruined it by just being there. How to tell these two camps apart, in my opinion? Her detractors are more likely to be in that flip cup line, renewing their Maxim subscriptions while Gyllenhaal’s defenders are possibly, right now, and even more annoyingly, sitting at their computers, just like me, writing pieces just like this one.

Mike Ryan is an entertainment writer who contributes to New York magazine, Vanity Fair, AOL’s Moviefone and Yahoo News, among other outlets. He lives in New York.

Post from: Crushable

You reportedly had words with ex-wife Robin Wright’s current squeeze, Hurt Locker producer Greg Shapiro, according to E! gossip Marc Malkin. Although your rep denies a controntation, Malkin cites sources as saying you had been banned from the post-Oscars Governor’s Ball.

What gives, Sean? Your talent is without doubt — we loved Milk and your directorial tour-de-force Into The Wild — but that is not enough to erase your personal history of sparking drama at inappropriate times. Clearly, you haven’t learned from your past behavior. Let’s list some, shall we?

• Filing for divorce from Robin Wright for a second time and then changing your mind.
• Reportedly hooking up with Natalie Portman as his marriage unraveled; her rep fervently denied this, but we would not put it past Sean to attempt to get with NatPort (the end-all, be-all for all men, apparently).
• Wishing critics of his humanitarian efforts in Haiti to die “screaming of rectal cancer.”
• Serving jail time for assaulting a photographer.
• Breaking up with Robin Wright and briefly dating model-arm candy Petra Nemcova.
• Forgetting to thank Robin Wright in his best-Oscar acceptance speech for Milk.
• Being otherwise awesome.

We repeat this list as a reminder to channel your flair for dramz into what you do best: acting, directing and attempting to save the world.

Take care–and talk soon!

Crushable

Post from: Crushable

Natalie Portman

(Photo: WENN.com)

Post from: Crushable

Here’s an acting team-up that I’m really excited about! According to various entertainment sources, Brad Pitt and Natalie Portman have signed on to do a new movie together. The film, Important Artifacts will be an adaptation of the novel Important Artifacts and Personal Property from the Collection of Lenore Doolan and Harold Morris, Including Books, Street Fashion, and Jewelry (whew, that title’s a mouthful!).

Paramount is the company that won the bid to develop the story into a romantic comedy. Variety has a bit of background as to what the book is about:

The book takes the form of Sotheby’s-like estate auction catalog, with 325 entries and photographs depicting items that reveal the private moments and the rise and fall of a four-year relationship between the fictitious couple Hal Morris (a 40ish photographer) and Lenore Doolan, (a New York Times food columnist in her late 20s).

The project will be developed as a romantic comedy, with Pitt to play Morris, and Portman to play Doolan.

Apparently it was Natalie who first approached Brad with the book and her interest in turning it into a film. I love when actors find something they want to do and set out to get it done instead of just waiting for someone to contact them first.

Natalie Portman is a fantastic actress, I have always liked her very much. And a romantic comedy is not exactly the norm for Brad so I think it could be really interesting to see this play out.

What do you think of the story?

(source)

Images used with permission: Newscom

Post from: Crushable